The marxist? an ethical accident waiting to happen…

One of the liabilities of marxism is its complete divorce, in the name of critiquing hegel, apparently, from the advances in philosophy in the early modern. And the issue of ethics in the embrace of scientism has deprived the left of any trace of the history of ethics. The advance of Kant here, undone by hegel in a dialectical mess of pottage, is an essential study but instead the dumbhead marxist is content to scoff at ethics in terms of class analyssis and the jargon of dialectic and other muddles left behind by marx.

The result was instantly challenged by a brand of socialism called ‘kantian ethical socialism’ but this is totally ignored by marxists who are accidents waiting to happen, as the bolshevik era makes clear.

Not that anyone else is much better. It is the oddest of historical facts that xtians after endless sermons over the ethical void of secularism themselves have no ethics, and no you can’t bring in the tale of moses and mt. sinai…Stripped of that mythology, xtians are almost as idiotic as marxists…

A classic here, with a history of the nineteenth century protest against marxism’s lack of any serious ethical reasoning, is:Kantian Ethical Socialism

The average asshole marxist wouldn’t deign to even mention, read or consider this legacy, content with garbage from the likes of plekhanov, lenin, et al…

It didn’t have to be that way, and it might be the case that socialists will get a second chance, but given their level of stupidity you have to wonder…

There is something tragic in the way marxists set themselves up using bad theory to stand beyond any kind of ethical considerations in the name of class denunciations of all ethics, etc…Put an idealistic marxist (dare not use the term), some really nice guys, in a revolutionary situation and they are unprepared for the tragic slide unaware of the ‘tragic flaw’ in their subject. And then they create a monopoly of the whole subject and denounce anyone who doesn’t agree to their dictates as ‘utopians’ or class enemies.A recipe for a tragic plot on a platter (called bolshevism)….

Kant has many critics, but the game of debunking kant gets suspicious, especially in academic nullities like rorty et al. who seem to revel in their idiocy as post-kantian sophisticates. Academic philosophy at least keeps alive the historical study here, and that is of essential importance…

Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative was an advance in thought, a first in world history after millennia of the nonsense of infantile old testament ethical stupidity.

That doesn’t mean you can’t critique kant, but he leaves behind a question and a mystery: humanity chatters a lot about ethics, but can’t reach first base on the subject. Then a figure like kant gets to first base, and is attacked with venomous hegelian dialectics and then marxist fanatics.

The problem with kant is that he is downright hard, can’t be simplified and went 90% of the way and then stopped, leaving everyone in a muddle of an incomplete subject and in a foxhole over free will in an age of science. The result is the difficulty of creating any kind of popular version that is truly a practical ethics. And then there are the notorious confusions over lying, both in kant (supposedly) and his critics, and the result is that politicians totally ignore him because of their ‘imperative’ to lie, although significantly everyone admits that lying can’t be publicly excused, etc, ad nauseam…

The problems in kant, which noone can really find, remain an obstacle, but there is no going back after his work to sterile alternatives, let alone religious and biblical psychopathic lies/myths…

At least consider kant’s important innovation, whatever its limits…And the left needs to be aware of the way they sidelined an honest effort to critique and correct their runaway freight train of dialectics maniacs…and kant raises the free will debate to a key issue, with the marxian deterministic robot commie in the rear view mirror….